I read Tom Osborne’s column “When Ideology Trumps Facts”. He stated that he does not object to healthy skepticism, but was “shocked” about Michelle Hall’s skepticism about human-caused global warming. He then proceeded to denigrate her for having this view, going so far as to berate her intelligence and suitability for city council. Really? I suspect not too many Lagunans peruse the latest copy of Scientific American with their morning java or receive regular updates from the IPCC.

I don’t know Tom Osborne or Ms. Hall from a hole in the wall, but I do know politically motivated arrogant condescension when I see it. Ms. Hall cited Dennis McTighe, a noted local meteorologist whom Mr. Osborne is familiar with, as a scientific source for her view which does not seem unreasonable. Yet Mr. Osborne suspects Ms. Halls views are simply derived from her subjective conservative political ideology.

Mr. Osborne should look in the mirror and reflect on his own political ideology and how that relates to what he touts are scientific facts. Perhaps he may see the hypocrisy in his attack on Ms. Hall’s views. Better yet, instead of insulting the intelligence of others, please review the fundamentals of science and facts: The scientific method, hypothesis, theory and scientific law. Anthropogenic global warming is clearly not a proven scientific law. It is clearly not a fact. It may not even be a theory, just a hypothesis. A hypothesis that also may need to be restated considering that global warming stopped, or as the believers say, “went on temporary hiatus”, 20+ years ago.

There are many smart scientists on both sides of the issue and political ideology on both sides with no unbiased proven consensus. Regardless, consensus is not science especially when research is funded by politically motivated ideologies. As such, anthropogenic global warming is a belief system, not scientific fact. For 1,400 years scientific consensus believed the Earth was the center of the Universe. Those proving otherwise were incarcerated in Galileo’s case and executed in the case of Bruno. Albert Einstein said, “that genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops”. From Galileo to Einstein, one scientist with proof trumps thousands of scientists who believe something to be true.

Clearly, one can be skeptical of global warming alarmists, yet still want to protect our natural environment.